Case Details
- Citation: [2021] SGHC 30
- Title: Rahman Mohammad Jillour v Paretam Singh s/o Kishen and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 10 February 2021
- Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
- Coram: Aedit Abdullah J
- Case Number: Originating Summons No 295 of 2020
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Rahman Mohammad Jillour
- Defendant/Respondent: Paretam Singh s/o Kishen and another
- Parties (aliases): Paretam Singh s/o Kishen Singh (alias Pritam Singh Gill)
- Counsel for Plaintiff/Applicant: Manickam Kasturibai and Jocinda Wong Jia Heng (East Asia Law Corporation)
- Counsel for Defendant/Respondent: Liew Teck Huat, Achala Krishna Menon, Ho Jun Yang Joshua (He Junyang) and Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan (Niru & Co LLC)
- Legal Area: Legal Profession — Bill of costs
- Statutes Referenced: Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”)
- Other Rules Referenced: Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) (“PCR”)
- Key Provisions Invoked: s 80 LPA; rule 16 PCR
- Judgment Length: 12 pages, 5,065 words
Summary
In Rahman Mohammad Jillour v Paretam Singh s/o Kishen and another [2021] SGHC 30, the High Court considered whether a former client was entitled to a court-ordered statement of accounts (a “bill of costs” account) from his former solicitor, arising from a personal injury settlement. The plaintiff, who had suffered serious injuries in a worksite accident, alleged that he was promised and paid only part of the settlement proceeds and that the solicitor’s charges and the circumstances of payment were not properly explained. He therefore sought an account and further equitable relief to secure payment of the alleged outstanding balance.
The court declined to grant the plaintiff’s application. While the judge acknowledged that there were aspects of the plaintiff’s allegations that, if true, would be concerning, the court held that the remedy sought—an account under the statutory framework—was not the appropriate mechanism on the facts. The judge emphasised that the dispute was, in substance, about what transpired between solicitor and client and what was charged, matters that could be addressed through other legal processes rather than by ordering an account where the solicitor had already provided documentation and explanations on multiple occasions.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Rahman Mohammad Jillour, suffered serious injuries to his legs and body in a worksite accident in September 2015. In October 2015, he instructed the defendant, his former solicitor, to pursue a claim for damages against those responsible. The claim proceeded to settlement, and in 2017 the insurers agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff. The settlement sum was S$204,674, described as a full and final settlement of the plaintiff’s claim. The settlement sum included damages (inclusive of interests), costs, and disbursements.
After the settlement was reached, a cheque for the settlement sum was issued in favour of the defendant’s firm and deposited into the firm’s client account. It was common ground that a cheque was drawn on the firm’s client account and that the plaintiff was accompanied to a bank to encash it. However, the parties diverged sharply on how the settlement monies were to be applied and what the plaintiff understood at the time of encashment.
According to the plaintiff’s account, he was to receive S$170,000 in two tranches: S$100,000 when he arrived in Singapore in 2017 and a further S$70,000 after he returned to Bangladesh. When he came to Singapore in September 2017 to collect the money, he met the defendant’s wife at a bank. He alleged that he was instructed to sign on the back of a cheque made out for the settlement sum in favour of the plaintiff. After cashing the cheque, he received S$100,000 in cash. He further alleged that he was escorted to the defendant’s office, where he was instructed to sign documents without having the contents explained to him and without being provided copies. He claimed he was then given a ticket to return to Bangladesh immediately, despite having told the defendant he wanted to stay in Singapore for a few days to arrange remittance. He returned to Bangladesh and, despite waiting for two years, did not receive the promised S$70,000.
In 2019, the plaintiff returned to Singapore and met the defendant at the defendant’s firm to ask about the missing S$70,000. The defendant showed him documents, including invoice no. 2088/17. The invoice indicated that the total amount due from the plaintiff was S$68,674, which the plaintiff understood to mean legal costs of S$58,624 and disbursements of the remainder. The plaintiff alleged that this differed from what he had been told in June 2017 (S$30,000), and he also pointed to an increase in disbursements from S$4,674 to S$10,050. He maintained that he was not informed of these increases until his newly instructed solicitors requested documents. He also asserted that even after accounting for the increased amounts, there remained an outstanding sum of S$36,000 that should have been remitted to him. When the defendant did not respond to his letter dated 10 December 2019 requesting documentary evidence and the basis for the increased charges, the plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking a statement of accounts and payment of the balance settlement amount, along with equitable relief to ensure release of the balance.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled, as a matter of law and discretion, to an order requiring the defendant solicitor to provide a statement of accounts in respect of the settlement monies. The plaintiff invoked s 80 of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) and rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR). In practical terms, the question was whether the statutory right to an account (and the court’s power to order one) should be exercised where the client’s complaint was not merely about arithmetic or incomplete disclosure, but about the substance of the solicitor-client transaction and the circumstances surrounding payment.
A second issue concerned the suitability of “taxation” or other cost-control mechanisms versus ordering an account. The plaintiff argued that taxation was not suitable because his main complaint was that he was still owed S$70,000, and he alleged that the defendant had undertaken to have his bills taxed but failed to do so. The defendant, by contrast, argued that the account sought would not resolve the dispute because the documents already showed that the solicitor’s costs and disbursements totalled the invoice amount and that the settlement cheque had been encashed and applied accordingly.
Finally, the court had to consider whether the application was, in substance, an attempt to re-litigate matters already explained and documented, and whether ordering an account would serve a legitimate purpose or instead amount to oppression or harassment of the solicitor. This required the court to assess the discretionary nature of ordering an account and whether the plaintiff had already been provided with the relevant information on multiple occasions.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The judge began by framing the dispute as one that, although presented as a request for an account, was really about what transpired between the plaintiff and the solicitor and whether the solicitor’s charges were properly explained and justified. The court noted that the plaintiff’s allegations—if accepted—would raise concerns. However, the court emphasised that the remedy sought must be properly matched to the nature of the complaint. The court declined to grant the application on the basis that an account was not the correct procedural vehicle to address the plaintiff’s underlying grievances.
On the statutory framework, the plaintiff relied on s 80 of the LPA and rule 16 of the PCR. Section 80 provides a mechanism for a client to obtain an account from a solicitor in appropriate circumstances. The court treated this as involving both legal entitlement and judicial discretion. In other words, even where the statutory provision is invoked, the court may consider whether ordering an account is necessary or whether the information has already been provided such that an account order would be redundant or oppressive.
The defendant’s response was that the relevant information had already been provided. The defendant’s version was that out of the settlement sum, S$170,000 represented damages and S$34,674 represented party-and-party costs and disbursements. The defendant also said that his own costs, disbursements, and advances made to the plaintiff would be taken from the settlement sum. On this account, the total of the defendant’s costs and disbursements plus advances equalled the invoice amount of S$68,674. The defendant claimed that when the plaintiff came to Singapore in September 2017, the defendant explained the breakdown of the invoice amount and showed the relevant documents. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff understood and agreed to the payment of the invoice amount. The defendant said that after the plaintiff encashed the cheque, the plaintiff instructed the bank to transfer the invoice amount to the defendant’s office account, while the balance was kept by the plaintiff. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff only began to dispute the arrangement two years later.
In assessing whether to order an account, the court placed weight on the fact that the defendant had produced documents and explanations on multiple occasions. The judge accepted that the plaintiff’s complaint was not simply about missing information; rather, it was about the plaintiff’s understanding at the time and the alleged failure to explain or provide copies of documents. The court considered that these matters were better addressed through other mechanisms, such as challenging the solicitor’s entitlement to costs or pursuing appropriate relief based on the solicitor-client relationship and the conduct alleged, rather than through an account order that would not resolve the core factual dispute.
The judge also drew on comparative reasoning from English authorities on analogous provisions. The defendant cited English cases on the discretion to order an account where information has already been provided, including Norman Allen v Brethertons LLP [2018] EWHC B15 (Costs), Jonathan Whale v Mooney Everett Solicitors Ltd [2018] EWHC B10 (Costs), and Vivek Ratan v Carter-Ruck Solicitors (20 May 2019, High Court of Justice Senior Courts Costs Office). The court treated these as persuasive for the proposition that ordering an account is discretionary and may be refused where the court is satisfied that the relevant information has already been given and the application is being used oppressively.
In addition, the defendant relied on Singapore authorities addressing oppression in the context of accounts by trustees, including Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others [2016] SGHC 260 and Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) v Moti Harkishindas Bhojwani [2019] 3 SLR 356. The judge considered the underlying principle: that courts may refuse an account where it would amount to oppression or harassment, particularly where the applicant’s repeated demands are not directed at genuine informational gaps but at re-opening matters already explained.
Applying these principles, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s application should not be granted. The court’s reasoning was not that the plaintiff’s allegations were necessarily untrue, but that the procedural remedy of an account was not the right fit. The judge indicated that the plaintiff’s remedy lay through other mechanisms. This approach reflects a practical judicial concern: where the parties’ dispute is fundamentally factual and centred on the solicitor’s conduct and the client’s understanding, an account order may not provide the substantive resolution sought.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court declined to grant the plaintiff’s originating summons seeking a statement of accounts, payment of the alleged balance settlement amount, and equitable remedies. The practical effect was that the plaintiff did not obtain the court-ordered accounting relief under s 80 LPA and rule 16 PCR.
The judge’s decision also signalled that the plaintiff would need to pursue alternative legal avenues to address the alleged failure to remit the promised S$70,000 and the alleged inadequacy or increase in costs and disbursements. The plaintiff indicated an appeal against the decision, but the judgment under review records the High Court’s refusal at first instance.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it underscores the discretionary and purposive nature of applications for a solicitor’s account under s 80 of the LPA. While the statutory framework provides a route for clients to seek transparency, the court will not automatically order an account where the dispute is not genuinely about missing information or incomplete disclosure. Instead, the court will examine whether ordering an account would meaningfully address the complaint or whether it would merely repackage a broader dispute about the solicitor-client transaction.
For solicitors, the decision highlights the importance of maintaining clear documentary records and being able to show that explanations and breakdowns of costs were provided to the client. The defendant’s ability to point to invoices, client account vouchers, and multiple occasions of explanation was central to the court’s view that the account sought would not be the appropriate remedy. For clients, the case illustrates that if the core grievance is that the solicitor acted improperly or failed to obtain proper agreement, the client may need to pursue other remedies rather than relying solely on an account order.
From a litigation strategy perspective, Rahman Mohammad Jillour also demonstrates how courts may consider the timing and conduct of the applicant. The court noted the plaintiff’s delay in raising disputes (two years after encashment) and the fact that the plaintiff had engaged with the defendant and reviewed documents on earlier occasions. These factors can influence whether the court views the application as a legitimate attempt to obtain clarification or as an attempt to harass or oppress the solicitor through repeated demands.
Legislation Referenced
- Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) — s 80
- Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) — rule 16
Cases Cited
- [2016] SGHC 260
- [2017] SGHC 90
- [2021] SGHC 30
- Norman Allen v Brethertons LLP [2018] EWHC B15 (Costs)
- Jonathan Whale v Mooney Everett Solicitors Ltd [2018] EWHC B10 (Costs)
- Vivek Ratan v Carter-Ruck Solicitors (20 May 2019, High Court of Justice Senior Courts Costs Office)
- Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others [2016] SGHC 260
- Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) v Moti Harkishindas Bhojwani [2019] 3 SLR 356
Source Documents
This article analyses [2021] SGHC 30 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.